Requiring someone to “save every kid in the system” as a precondition for opposing abortion is an unreasonable form of gatekeeping. If unborn humans are regarded as equal to you and me and are being unjustly killed, that constitutes a moral emergency. Moral emergencies do not become optional simply because other serious injustices also exist.
A helpful comparison is between two groups of four-year-old children. One group is being legally killed every day; the other is trapped in a system that is deeply flawed and urgently needs reform. Both groups deserve care, protection, and sustained effort. But it makes no sense to forbid advocacy for the first group until the second group’s crisis is fully resolved. Addressing one injustice does not require the complete solution of every other injustice first.
The heightened focus on the unborn is explained by the depth of public disagreement surrounding them. A large portion of the country denies that the group believed to be killed even exists as a group of humans at all. That denial drives the need for repeated attention to establishing their reality and equal status, not indifference to children already born or to systemic failures that also demand reform.
Key Takeaways
Moral emergencies demand action now; they are not postponed until all other social problems are solved.
Caring about children in foster care and opposing abortion are compatible obligations, not competing ones.
Gatekeeping advocacy implies that some victims must wait their turn to be defended, which is morally inconsistent.
The focus on unborn children reflects a unique denial of their existence and status, not neglect of other children.